The majority do not want what you want, or the majority that owns a lot of coins. Look at it whatever way you want. The roadmap is better than anything you will ever see from newbies such as found in Classic. It features increases in capacity, improvements to the infrastructure, while on the other hand Classic has nothing (aside of a stoner, a developer of mediocre skill; should I go on?).

No, this is propaganda. Everyone stated being obsessed on how Blockstream would ROI. After they start looking into ways of doing that, they're also bad. There is no rational reason for the move away from Core, none. If you are unable to get your way then the other party is bad?

Here I am going to share with you what I saw and heard rather than my personal thoughts: I went to a Bitcoin event in Beijing last week. Some prominent Chinese Bitcoiners were also there. The sentiment was overwhelming that the ideal solution to the scaling question is implementing 2MB block size through a Core update as soon as possible. Some felt frustrated that core devs had been ignoring their demand, and this sense of frustration contributed to the conspiracy theory, which was explicitly expressed there: The Bitcoin Core team doesn't want to make a precedent because the team is controlled by Blockstream, who bet heavily on the success of Sidechains and Lightning Networks.
Some expressed the view that while SigWit has its potential, it is something never been tried before, therefore should be given more time for thorougher test; worse, some felt that it represents a development that has deviated from Satoshi's vision and eventually, led to increased complexity of the protocol to such degree that it would be forbidding to most startups.
Overall, there seems to be a sense of helplessness. Some reflected on why the Chinese had so little say in the matter and some urge that the Chinese should form their own core development team and create their own fork.